1997-05-02 - Re: SAFE Bill is a Good Thing–“Crypto For The Masses”

Header Data

From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU>
To: Mac Norton <abd@cdt.org>
Message Hash: b7b2d8456ef4e82e01b3bc6932ff698000cc405e5f097bb212658214243d3177
Message ID: <9705020808.AA18096@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-02 09:10:26 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:10:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 17:10:26 +0800
To: Mac Norton <abd@cdt.org>
Subject: Re: SAFE Bill is a Good Thing--"Crypto For The Masses"
Message-ID: <9705020808.AA18096@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Alan Davidson wrote:
>> 2. CDT Does Not Support The Criminal Provision in SAFE

>At 22:09 5/01/97 -0500, Mac Norton wrote:
>I don't get it.  CDT loudly supports the bill. The bill
>contains the criminal provision.  I don't get it.  Do you?

	I keep having bad flashbacks to Digital Telephony, and
pre-CDA. Virtually all the lobbying groups would run around saying
things like "we support this bill, but oppose this provision". Or
convoluted stuff like "We oppose all these bills, but of the measures
being considered, we support this one".
	The pattern is really bothering me.

================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu






Thread